http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: T. VENKATRAMANAPPA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       20/09/1996

BENCH: M.M. PUNCHHI, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This is  an appeal  against the  order of the Karnataka Administrative  Tribunal   [the   Tribunal]   at   Bangalore whereunder the respondent seemingly was absolved from facing a departmental  enquiry on the charge of having contracted a second marriage in the presence of the one subsisting with his acknowledged  wife and, as a result of which, the orders of suspension  passed against  the  respondent  were  lifted conferring  consequential  benefits.  It  appears  from  the record  that  the  respondent,  a  Police  Constable,  faced prosecution at the instance of his wife, before the criminal court and  was discharged  for want  of evidence  of the 2nd marriage. On the hand, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the respondent for which, priorly, he was suspended. He, in  turn, approached the Tribunal for the twin relief of (i) lifting  the suspension  order  and  (ii)  to  stop  the enquiry on  the  ground  that  the  criminal  court  had  on 14.1.1988 discharged  him of  the offence  of bigamy.  These pleas found  favour with  the Tribunal and, resultantly, the departmental proceedings  were quashed  and the  suspensions lifted.      When this  matter was  brought to  this court,  it  was pleaded that  the said  order of  the criminal  court, dated 14.1.1988 had  been subjected  to  revision  and  there  was likelihood of  the view  of the  Magistrate being  reversed. Now, it transpires that the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge concerned wide order dated 11.9.1990, has affirmed the view of  the Trial  Magistrate  with  the  result  that  the respondent remains  discharged. This  apparently is  on  the basis that  strict proof  of  solemnisation  of  the  second marriage must  be proved  before conviction  can be recorded for such  offence. There  is a  string of  judgments of this Court whereunder strict proof of solemnisation of the second marriage, with due observance of rituals and ceremonies, has been insisted upon. The prosecution evidence in the criminal complaint may  have fallen short of those standards but that does not  mean that  the State  was in any way debarred form invoking Rule 28 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, which forbids a  Government servant to marry a second time without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the permission  of the Government. But, here, the respondent being a  Hindu, could  never have been granted permission by the Government  to  marry  a  second  time  because  of  his personal law  forbidding such  marriage. It  was thus beyond the ken  of the  Tribunal to  have scuttled the departmental proceedings against  the respondent on the footing that such question of  bigamy should  normally not  be  taken  up  for decision in  departmental enquiries.  as  the  decisions  of competent courts  tending to be decisions in rem would stand at the  highest pedestal.  There was a clear fallacy in such view because for purposes of Rule 28, such strict standards, as would  warrant a  conviction for bigamy under Section 494 IPC, may  not, to  begin with,  be necessary.  We  therefore explain away  the orders of the Tribunal to the afore extent that Rule  28 can  be invoked,  but would certainly maintain the orders of revocation of suspension since in the presence of the  orders of discharge in favour of the respondent, his continued  suspension   during  the   enquiry  was   totally unwarranted. Let the enquiry be held.      There is thus partial success for both the parties. The appeal  stands   ordered   with   these   observations   and directions.